|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
9th June 2012, 08:42 PM | #1 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
Am I using the strawman fallacy in Swift blog comments?
In the "The Skeptical Disconnect" Swoft blog (by Kyle Hill), I (Baloney) rebutt some of badrscher's comments, and she claims I'm making strawman arguments. I don't believe that I am (in fact, I think she is making strawman arguments and "moving the goal posts"), but maybe I'm deluding myself -- maybe I'm actually the one moving goal posts and strawman-building.
Could someone with a better eye for logic and argument than me please confirm that I am either making fallacious arguments or not? I want to make sure that I set the record straight and make amends if I'm wrong. Thanks, Baloney! ETA: mods -- should this be in "members only" section? |
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
10th June 2012, 10:41 AM | #2 |
Alumbrado
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
|
Atheism is a self selected belief set, as are the other belief options. Even those who just don't care, are putting themselves in a group... (apatheism?).
For all practical purposes: All 'I'm an atheist's belong to the set 'A' (Atheists) All 'I'm a Baptist's are 'B'. All 'I'm a Catholic's are 'C' Skepticism is simply an assertion without clear cut parameters for inclusion. There is no {All I'm a Skeptic's are S} cohesion. Substitute 'I'm an excellent driver' for 'I'm a skeptic', and make your Venn diagram... it still won't include the entire subset in the larger set. |
10th June 2012, 03:05 PM | #3 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
|
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
10th June 2012, 03:37 PM | #4 |
Alumbrado
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
|
|
10th June 2012, 07:18 PM | #5 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
|
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
21st June 2012, 06:27 PM | #6 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
I'm begging (the question) here!
Seriously though, I'm really trying to find where I allegedly used a logical fallacy here:
Originally Posted by Baloney
Originally Posted by badrescher
|
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
21st June 2012, 07:15 PM | #7 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,983
|
You've committed a fallacy in that you've misrepresented badrescher's argument. It is clear from the context of the line you quoted that the point being made is about the definition of scepticism. "Skepticism is not about beliefs" is shorthand for... the definition of scepticism doesn't relate so much to having the right beliefs as it does to how your beliefs are arrived at and how lightly they are held.
You've interpreted it to mean "Skepticism has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs in anyway and shouldn't be applied to them". Taking that one phrase literally and out of its context, misrepresents the argument. If you did it deliberately with the intention of attacking something weaker then it's a strawman argument. |
21st June 2012, 07:54 PM | #8 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
Cool, thanks for the response!
But what I'm trying to say with my argument is "skepticism does relate in that having beliefs based without an evidentiary basis is non-skeptical." I tried to summarize that with my last sentence. My examples showed beliefs without a evidence. badrescher is saying "There is no judgement of beliefs in skepticism. There is only judgement of the accuracy of information." and I'm arguing that judgement of beliefs based on non-credible information is skeptical. Is that still strawman, or is that just my misinterpreting their argument? Is this a mistake in my stating "not accepting beliefs without evidence into a belief system" as opposed to badrescher saying "skepticism doesn't include whether beliefs can be judged valid or invalid"? Is that what the argument is, because the way you translated doesn't make sense to me: I think there may be a very subtle semantic element that I'm just not getting. |
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
26th June 2012, 01:50 AM | #9 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
I think there is a terminology misunderstanding involved. This may involve a mischaracterization of the other's idea but is not necessarily a straw-man fallacy. I don't think badrescher was suggesting that the supernatural be excluded from skeptical inquiry, so your argument against that point was mistaken. Probably a misunderstanding on the loaded term 'belief'.
A strawman arg involves purposely mis-characterizing the other's argument, for the purpose of creating an decisive count-argument against the false arg. I don't believe your argument is of this form but to be fair I can see why badrescher might misinterpret it that way. |
27th June 2012, 05:39 PM | #10 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
Agreed: I find it can often be virtually impossible to derive intent and purpose from a few sentences. Also, I think (even though I still don't think I quite get badrescher's argument) that I have most probably misinterpreted the argument, though completely unintentionally.
Thanks, all, for the input! |
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
30th June 2012, 07:22 PM | #11 |
New York Skeptic
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
|
I couldn't read past the word "rebutt" without spewing Adolph Coor's Light all over the keyboard.
This belongs in Paradie section. ETA: It is gone now. Too bad, that was a keeper. |
5th August 2012, 12:08 PM | #12 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 277
|
I don't have time to read very much, but as others mentioned, from what I could gather I agree that you misunderstood the argument being made and interpreted it as saying that religious beliefs should be exempt from skeptical inquiry, where such was not the argument.
The argument is probably coming from a few places. Somebody can be a skeptic and believe in certain supernatural things by: 1. Holding those beliefs lightly and tentatively. 2. Considering them of less importance as pursuits for inquiry (and so not making them the focus of skepticism- limited time/resources and all) 3. Perhaps they were investigated skeptically and found to be unfalsifiable (see point #2) and so inherently unknown and not worth wasting time trying to prove or disprove, or found to be plausible or even true (something I don't necessarily agree with, but a 'possibility' that the person making the argument may be considering). 4. It could also be done in ignorance; such that the supernatural explanation actually seems to be the most likely for lack of knowledge of science. Skepticism says nothing about how much we know about the world- only how we approach what we do know or consider true. |
10th August 2012, 02:06 PM | #13 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
|
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
10th August 2012, 02:08 PM | #14 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 698
|
|
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|